[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0807241103190.1545@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:07:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq_segments
about VMERGE
> > For a dumb I/O card, you advertise SG_ALL capabilities, the IOMMU
> > is going to merge things as it would have anyways, and you have
> > code in the driver to advance SG entries after each "dumb I/O".
>
> Not that dumb ... they just have a limited number of SG slots. We
> wouldn't want to run them as spoon fed PIO because that really would
> kill performance.
>
> > There is zero value to the vmerge code, the real gains are being
> > realized already.
>
> There is value to me in my testbed, which I can't achieve any other way
> (except by buying different SCSI cards).
>
> As I said, you can compile it out on sparc just fine. I wish to keep it
> running for parisc, so I'll maintain it. If it ever bit rots out of
> parisc like it has done for the other architectures, then feel free to
> remove it.
>
> James
So try to #define BIO_VMERGE_BOUNDARY 0 for Pa-Risc and tell us what
performance degradation do you see (and what driver do you use and what is
the I/O pattern).
If you show something specific, we can consider that --- but you haven't
yet told us anything, except generic talk.
Mikulas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists